AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

# AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies: one is a modern integrated processor (IGP) built for mobility, the other is a dedicated entry-level workstation card from a previous generation. Benchmark data from Geekbench places the AMD Radeon Vega 3 in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile, making them near-identical in overall standing despite their architectural differences. The sole head-to-head benchmark available shows a razor-thin margin, with the Vega 3 edging out the Quadro by 1.1% in Geekbench OpenCL.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has an average benchmark score of 4268, compared to 3919 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, a difference of roughly 8.9%. However, the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test shows a much smaller gap of only 1.1% (3963 vs 3919).

Q: How does the AMD Radeon Vega 3 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Vega 3’s nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W2100 with an average score of 4295 (Vega 3 is 0.6% behind), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 (0.3% behind). It also beats the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M by 0.6% (4241) and trails the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 by 1.5% (4335).

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses the GCN 5.0 architecture on a 12 nm process with 4,940 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture on a 28 nm process with 1,270 million transistors. The Vega 3 is an IGP with system-shared memory, whereas the K2000D is a dedicated card with 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has higher peak FP32 performance at 732.7 GFLOPS, compared to 422.4 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Vega 3, a 73.5% advantage. The K2000D also leads in pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W and requires no power connectors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W and also uses no power connectors. The K2000D’s suggested PSU is 250 W, while the Vega 3 has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which API versions are supported by each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vega 3 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture using a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm process, with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a density of 10.8M per mm². This means the Vega 3 has roughly 3.9 times more transistors and a die that is 78% larger, though it is manufactured on a more advanced node.

The Vega 3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a PCIe interface listed as "IGP" and no slot width, meaning it is embedded in the CPU package. It features 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 raster operation units. Its memory subsystem is entirely system-shared, with the size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared," and bandwidth dependent on the host system’s memory configuration. Clock speeds are 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, with memory speed also system-dependent.

The Quadro K2000D is a discrete, single-slot card measuring 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, connecting via PCIe 2.0 x16. It offers 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — double the shading units and TMUs, and four times the ROPs of the Vega 3. Its memory is dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s and an effective memory clock of 4 Gbps. The K2000D’s FP32 throughput is 732.7 GFLOPS, significantly higher than the Vega 3’s 422.4 GFLOPS, and it also leads in pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s).

The Vega 3 supports FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the K2000D has no listed FP16 capability. The Vega 3’s feature set includes DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the K2000D is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vega 3’s display outputs are motherboard-dependent, while the K2000D provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

The transistor counts reflect different design goals: the Vega 3’s 4,940 million transistors include the integrated CPU and GPU on the same die, whereas the K2000D’s 1,270 million are dedicated solely to graphics. The Vega 3’s TDP of 15 W makes it suitable for ultra-low-power systems, while the K2000D’s 51 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU indicate a need for a more substantial power supply, though neither card requires external power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D’s 3919. This yields a 1.1% advantage for the Vega 3, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run variance for most workloads. The Vega 3 also has additional benchmark entries for Geekbench Metal (4880) and Geekbench Vulkan (3961), while the K2000D has no corresponding scores, suggesting that the Vega 3 has broader API support in testing environments.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Vega 3’s average across all its benchmark results is 4268, driven up significantly by its Metal score of 4880, which is 23.1% higher than its OpenCL result. The K2000D’s average is simply its single OpenCL score of 3919, as no other benchmarks were recorded. This discrepancy highlights that the Vega 3’s performance advantage may be more pronounced in Metal-based workloads, while OpenCL performance is nearly identical.

In terms of raw theoretical throughput, the Quadro K2000D holds clear leads: its FP32 rate of 732.7 GFLOPS is 73.5% higher than the Vega 3’s 422.4 GFLOPS. The K2000D also doubles the TMU count (32 vs 12) and quadruples the ROP count (16 vs 4), leading to a 2.3x higher texture fill rate (30.53 GTexel/s vs 13.20 GTexel/s) and a 73.5% higher pixel fill rate (7.632 GPixel/s vs 4.400 GPixel/s). Despite these theoretical advantages, the K2000D’s memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is fixed, whereas the Vega 3’s bandwidth is system-dependent and could potentially exceed or fall below that figure depending on the host platform’s memory configuration.

The Vega 3’s wins in the head-to-head are limited to the single OpenCL test, giving it a 1-0 record in direct comparisons. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 0.3% ahead), AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 0.6% ahead), and Quadro K3000M (4241, 0.6% behind), showing that it sits in a narrow performance band. The K2000D’s nearest rivals are similarly close: the Quadro 2000D (3930, 0.3% ahead), Quadro 2000 (3898, 0.5% behind), GeForce GT 745M (3953, 0.9% ahead), and Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, 0.9% behind). Both GPUs compete within a performance envelope of roughly ±1.5% of their nearest competitors.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In the direct OpenCL benchmark, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins by 1.1%, and its average benchmark score of 4268 is 8.9% higher than the K2000D’s 3919. The Vega 3 also offers superior API support with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, higher transistor density (23.5M/mm² vs 10.8M/mm²), and dramatically lower power consumption at 15 W versus 51 W. For users prioritizing energy efficiency, modern API compatibility, and integrated simplicity, the Vega 3 is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence.

However, the Quadro K2000D counters with substantial leads in theoretical compute: 73.5% higher FP32 throughput, 2.3x higher texture rate, and 73.5% higher pixel rate. It also provides dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s fixed bandwidth, which may be more consistent than the Vega 3’s system-dependent memory. The K2000D’s 384 shading units versus 192, and 16 ROPs versus 4, suggest it could handle geometry-heavy or fill-rate-bound workloads more effectively, even if the OpenCL score does not reflect this. Its 202 mm length and single-slot design make it a straightforward drop-in for workstation builds with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot.

The choice depends on the workload. If the target applications are modern, API-rich environments (Vulkan 1.3, DirectX 12_1) and power efficiency is paramount, the Vega 3’s benchmark scores and feature set give it the edge. If raw fill rates, fixed memory bandwidth, and a dedicated card form factor matter more, the K2000D’s theoretical throughput could translate to better performance in specific legacy or compute-bound tasks. The lack of multiple head-to-head benchmarks makes a definitive verdict difficult, but the data leans toward the Vega 3 for general-purpose modern workloads, while the K2000D remains competitive in scenarios that exploit its higher shader count and memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Vega 3 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

|---------------|-------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 5.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 12 | 32 |

| ROPs | 4 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 4.400 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.20 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 422.4 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 51 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 202 mm x 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2019-11-19 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | GCN 3.0 IGP | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Vega II IGP | Quadro Maxwell |